Obama: Still not about issues

Despite his obvious discomfort with going negative, Barack Obama has been slowly edging toward the "Hillary is too polarizing" pitch that Andrew Sullivan and I have advocated. The problem, however, is that his core message is still about process rather than issues -- and process candidates do not usually win primaries.

During last night's debate, for instance, Obama went after Hillary early on this point and she struck back with an issue critique that was much more effective (transcript, video):

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I’m really happy to be here in Nevada and I appreciate this opportunity.

Senator Clinton, I think, is a capable politician, and I think that she has run a terrific campaign. But what the American people are looking for right now is straight answers to tough questions. And that is not what we’ve seen out of Senator Clinton on a host of issues, on the issue of driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.

We saw in the last debate that it took not just that debate but two more weeks before we could get a clear answer in terms of where her position was. The same is true on Social Security. We have serious disagreements about how we’re going to make sure that Social Security is there for the people who need it.

And what I’m absolutely convinced of is that right now, we need a different kind of politics. Everywhere I go, all throughout Nevada, people are struggling with health care. People are working harder for less. They are having a tougher time saving, tougher time retiring. And part of the reason is because they don’t feel that Washington is listening to them.

And what I want to do in this campaign is make certain that we are breaking out of the gridlock and partisanship and the standard practices of Washington and actually start listening to the American people to get things done.

MR. BLITZER: All right. Senator Clinton, do you want to respond?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I hear what Senator Obama is saying, and he talks a lot about stepping up and taking responsibility and taking strong positions. But when it came time to step up and decide whether or not he would support universal health care coverage, he chose not to do that. His plan would leave 15 million Americans out. That’s about the population of Nevada, Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire.

I have a universal health care plan that covers everyone. I’ve been fighting this battle against the special interest for more than 15 years, and I am proud to fight this battle. You know, we can have a different politic, but let’s not forget here that the people who we’re against are not going to be giving up without a fight. The Republicans are not going to vacate the White House voluntarily. We have some big issues ahead of us, and we need someone who is tested and ready to lead. I think that’s what my candidacy offers. (Cheers, applause.)

While Obama mentions a few issues in passing, his message is "I will create a different kind of politics," while Hillary's is "I am a leader who will fight for issues you care about like universal health care." Obama is going to lose that fight every time, particularly among downscale voters who aren't interested in process.

(Image from the New York Times)

Comments

[biwah]

True, but I think the actual distinctions on issues are so slight that the few distinctions that exist have to be magnified, e.g. SSI income caps, DL licenses for illegals, etc. And on their own, those issues don't ignite real passion or interest over the long haul, especially among less committed "in-play" voters.

Therefore, process becomes a vehicle for personality. It's not process qua process, but process as a proxy, and a medium, for that candidate's vision. Obama has indeed chosen that more difficult route, but he is doing it very well. That is the only candidate he CAN be, so whether he will change is moot - I don't think he can.

Besides, the public's grievances with the current admin are mainly ones of process and not necessarily issues IMHO. The basic language of political process is more widely understood now than it has been in recent generations - the real question is not whether the middlebrow voter can understand it, but whether any candidate can speak it. Given some time to make his case, Obama can (and is).

And the "issues" are hardly that, at this moment in history. They are an ossified set of litmus tests having demonstrably little connection to real policies. They are a dumbed-down political Myers-Briggs test which have become so hackneyed that the only question is which candidate can game it the most proficiently (and raise the requisite cash in the process).

Have faith. I think the voters in Iowa will.